Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

CWmike writes "Dell will charge customers up to $50 for factory-installed Windows XP on some PCs after Wednesday, according to the company's Web site. Buyers of the low-priced Vostro line of desktops and notebooks will pay $20 to $50 more for Windows XP Professional installed as a 'downgrade' from Windows Vista Business or Vista Ultimate than they would for Vista only."

WinME is just the wierdest release Microsoft ever did, only one year after 98SE and a year before XP Home, both technically and marketwise. In retrospect I think it was the Golgafrincham B Ark of Microsoft developers, where all the good brainpower was transferred to the 2k/XP line while those too incompetent to bring on and yet not incompetent enough to outright fire were left on the 98/ME line. The bean counters wanted some ROI so instead of releasing a service pack to 98 and so WinME came to be. I don't think Vista can be described in much the same way.

That said, many people would use XP because it's XP and for no other reason. It has all the buttons in the right places and works exactly the same as it's "supposed to" work. Let others figure out the funny stuff for you, then you migrate when you need to. I migrated from 2000 SP4 to XP SP2, now I run XP in a virtualbox under Linux but maybe someday I'll upgrade to a Vista version too. Not today though, not tomorrow either.

1. Write software that works 90% of the time and crashes randomly 10% of the time (who cares the 10% is during critical computing)2. Wait, release patches.3. Release new version of OS so crappy the public will be happy to use the 90% ware and pay to downgrade4. Profit

Nice the generic windows diss... My only question is, What of us gamers running win boxes that are rock solid? And have never had anything but a rock solid box? Aside from the odd hardware failures that is...;)

DirectX is a fantastic API that allows developers to effectively bypass some pretty piss-poor Win32 APIs. Games are written for DirectX, not for Windows. The fact is that DirectX runs in other environments, like Xbox and Xbox360. If all you're doing is gaming, then you shouldn't be surprised if yo

The fact is that DirectX runs in other environments, like Xbox and Xbox360. If all you're doing is gaming, then you shouldn't be surprised if your box is 'rock solid.'

1) Environments would not be the correct term.2) XBox and XBox360 both run Windows- XBox is Win2K, XBox360 is XP x64.

This whole thread is based on the premise that Windows crashes, and reliability studies continue to show that since Win2k and XP, crashes are as rare on Windows as they are on any other OS. Vista so far is reporting to be even more stable than any OS, which is a bit surprising.

Windows stability issues is an old tale that needs to finally stop. People stopped bitching about Apple OS 9 when it was replaced with OS X, yet people still make fun of Windows based on the Win9x era.

Windows users don't see crashes, this is not the Win9x kernel era, the 'Windows crashes all the time' myth crap needs to stop once and for all...

I would love to hear about gamers running a rock-solid gaming session for a week.Gamers run their games for somewhere between 12 and 18 hours at a time. That's a SINGLE application most of that time.

If desktop PC Windows users only ran a single application all day long, they would probably ALSO have rock-solid results. Unfortunately, that's not the case. Instead, they usually run a dozen different apps no including the multitude of other programs that run in the background from start-up to make things ea

I think this is a big part of the problem. When you have that kind of time line, the project loses focus. Remember all of the things that were supposed to be in Vista but were dropped along the way? There never seemed to be a clear vision of what it was supposed to be. It doesn't have to be that way. NASA certainly has shown that long term projects can have spectacular results.

It doesn't have to be that way. NASA certainly has shown that long term projects can have spectacular results.

Linux has shown that OS development doesn't have to be phased in huge long-term projects in the first place. The kernel changes continuously, often supporting both the current "best" way of doing something as well as the previous "deprecated" interface that will disappear after a few years.

Now, you could say "you can't leap a chasm two inches at a time," but where is the great leap forward with Vista?

Do you also remember Microsoft dropping work on Vista to heavily invest in XP.SP2? Do you remember the significant changes that went into security training and code analysis to finally work on securing Windows?

The ship took a massive course change during the product cycle for Vista - which changed what the priorities were for the final release. This should not be overlooked.

Don't get me wrong, the Vista that did ship was a huge piece of junk - but SP1 has fixed many of the significant problems peop

It may just be me, but *every* Micro$oft default in XP needs to be reversed before I can live with it. And, while it's not as bad as Vista, it still has the occasional habit of asking "Are you sure you want to do that?" and when you say "Yes" it'll do something, but quietly revert to its previous default after a reboot. It was the first generation of "Micro$oft Knows Best".

And it's a fallacy that XP runs significantly more packages than 2000 does. It's just that Micro$oft rewrote their installers to check and exit if they were run under 2000. I have successfully installed and used several "XP Only" packages under 2000 by using a hacked set of installer DLLs.

I'm curious: what makes XP "downhill" from 2000? Because I used both, and XP feels like a cleaner version of 2000 (once you turn off theming, anyway).

So you judge an OS by the quality of its GUI? By that measure, I'd say Win 2000 wins (the two OSs pretty well come out even on every other measure). XP definitely had a far more irritating GUI than Win 2000. I don't remember what "theming" is, but I remember having to:

Turn off balloon "help"

Turn off "notifications" (balloons that nag you from the task bar (I think that required a reg edit)

Reverting to Windows "classic"

folders

windows

menus

Turning off the wonderful "firewall"

Telling XP not to hide "inactive" icons in the tool bar.

Generally finding every option that tells XP to STFU

Only time I ever found a reason to prefer XP over 2000 was when I was messing with wireless, and learned that it was a pain to support anything better than WEP encryption on 2000 (something MS could have easily done in a patch). Only reason I've been paying for XP these days is that it will be supported with fixes for all those security holes longer than 2000.

These people are paying an extra $50 off of the most expensive versions of Vista so that they can run Windows XP. People that are willing to pay a premium to run XP are not excited about the fact that they get Vista as well.

Seriously, if these thought that Vista was worth running, they'd save their $50 and run Vista. There is essentially no way to spin this that is good for Microsoft or Vista. Heck, downgrading to Windows XP on most computers of the Vostro line (which ship with Vista Home Basic by default) adds $150 to the price tag.

These people are paying an extra $50 off of the most expensive versions of Vista so that they can run Windows XP

What I meant to say was that these people are paying an extra $50 "on top of" the most expensive version of Vista. It's possible that this mistake is why you got so worked up. The basic idea is that it doesn't make sense to pay an extra $50 to have Windows XP installed if what you really want to do is run Windows Vista. Especially considering the fact that Dell probably doesn't include Windows Vista installation media with these computers.

Here's your response:

WRONG! When you buy Vista Business or Ultimate (note: Business costs the same as XP Pro), you are entitled to downgrade the system yourself. Dell are offering their "downgrade services" for $50. This is not M$ ripping you off, it's Dell offering you to downgrade for an extra fee. Dell offer to re-configure your computer's Boot Sequence for $5, they offer to remove unwanted applications for a few bucks, and there are probably more customisation things which i cant remember. Dell is probably being forced down the Vista road, but while the downgrade loophole exists, they are cashing in. You can downgrade yourself & save $50.

I don't think it's MS that is charging you more. I think it's Dell, who is charging you for the work involved in doing the downgrade. You could do it at home by yourself, without incurring any extra cost.

Sorry, I used it, on brand new hardware with shit-gobs of memory. Vista is a dog. I like what they were trying to do with it, and liked a lot of the UI enhancements, but I bought a fast laptop to get work done, not wait for windows to pop open.

That is pretty funny, but interestingly enough, the original XBOX360 dev kits were Apple G5s (IBM PPC 970) running some kind of NT kernel. At some video game industry shows, playable game demos were actually running on Apple G5 workstations.

Who cares who posted it, it's a legitimate news story from a fairly reliable source (computer world). This story is of interest to the tech world in general.

And no, I'm not a twitter sock puppet, and I generally think he's kind of over the top, but this article looks like a pretty straightforward summary of the article it links to. This particular piece is not in any way "hysterical FUD." Do you add anyone who responds to twitter's posts or reads his journal to his list of sock puppets?

Many people also pay (nothing, of course) for Windows XP, but I was one of those suckers who paid extra for a dell laptop with a legit installation of XP pro because it was a bitch to find ANY laptop which wasn't already loaded with Vista!

You are a sucker. I've purchased two copies of Vista. One retail and one with a new laptop. In the license agreement that came with both of them, there is a clause that allows you to use Windows XP instead of Vista. No need to pay extra.

Is this for real? Any copy of vista you pay for you can take an OEM CD of XP and install it and you're legal?

What code do you enter when it asks? The one for the vista install? Does it activate? Who has done this?

Most people will have a copy of XP around, probably OEM. I have a CD for pro and home, so this may just make the vista thing a non-issue. You're still buying a copy of AN operating system, there's just an extra step of the format/reinstall to fix it.

According to this [microsoft.com], business and ultimate are eligable for a free downgrade to XP Professional:

Rights to OEM versions of systems software are granted in the OEM License Terms. The OEM License Terms for most OEM versions of systems software do not grant downgrade rights. The exception is the OEM License Terms for the WindowsÂ® XP Professional operating system and the Windows Vistaâ Business and Windows Vista Ultimate operating systems, which grant downgrade rights. See the full text of the OEM License Terms for the specific downgrade rights.

Well, I guess it depends on what you do with that computer. If Ubuntu does the trick for you, more power to you.

On the other hand, while I _am_ writing this on a SuSE 10.0 machine, I wouldn't really want Linux on my gaming rig. I know, Wine, bla, bla, bla. Tried that route some time ago, wasn't worth the effort. Does it even work with most games' copy-protection these days, or do you still need a crack just to run your legitimately purchased game in Wine?

And once you include all the free-and-Free games in Ubuntu's repository, you have more games than were released for the Atari 7800 (60 titles) [wikipedia.org] and Virtual Boy (22) [wikipedia.org] put together. And no, not all of them are just Tetris clones [pineight.com] either.

And most of those games are still on an Atari 7800 level in 2008.
And before I'm told that I don't understand Linux/FOSS; I use Linux every day, but the Linux gaming situation is pitiful.
Now, I'll expect one of the following responses from someone here:
1. "But it runs World of Warcraft (in Wine)!"
2. "Linux users aren't worried about games, buy an XBox 360. Lack of games is a feature of Linux!"

An Atari 7800 still provides some of the best home arcade experiences short of a MAME cabinet.

If you focus on how much fun you can have, instead of whether you're pushing the most polygons through your video card, then linux is a nice option for gaming. No matter what genre of game you like most, there's something for you on linux.

And once you include all the free-and-Free games in Ubuntu's repository, you have more games than were released for the Atari 7800 (60 titles) and Virtual Boy (22) put together. And no, not all of them are just Tetris clones either.

Look, I'm not trying to dis Linux or anything. It's great for work or casual browsing any email.

But for games, umm, how do I say this tactfully?

1. the "you have more games than were released for the Atari 7800 (60 titles) and Virtual Boy (22) put together" doesn't say much. Both

compare win2k that had NO activation and you could copy the system disk from one box to another and it would work fine (if the hardware/kernel were compatible).

I am forced to use an acronis (or similar) tool to dupe my system disk. that hurdle should NOT exist but XP sure does like to stop you doing things you need to, at the system level.

not to mention activation, which kept a lot of people OFF xp and made win2k the last 'great' os from MS.

the only useful xp is a corp edition (non activation), sp2, pre-WGA. all others are bolloxed-up. (fwiw, at least SP3 on xp didn't turn on WGA on the corp version I tested it with. so a corp SP2 with SP3 update still seems 'mostly safe' to use).

It's a "downgrade" only because Microsoft wants to preserve the illusion that Vista is better, and the pricing is set to discourage people from buying it.

But, yes... a significant share of the consumer market, and practically *all* of the informed market, consider XP a vastly improved upgrade [dotnet.org.za] over Vista.

I've been using Microsoft OSes since MS-DOS 3.2 (circa 1988), and I've never been nearly as frustrated, disappointed, and often outraged by an OS as I am with Vista. I've been using it for two months, and it's horrid in many, many aspects.

I have been making a list of irritations that are novel to Vista. Every time I run across some new irritant, I pop open this text file and add a line to it. I am also making a list of Vista features that I have turned off because they are buggy, poorly implemented, resource hogs, unsecure, frustrating to use, etc., etc. They are both very long lists, and they continue to grow.

I bought XP Pro last year (January 07), and as a "special" got Vista Pro upgrade for "free" (plus $10 shipping and handling), so I went ahead and got it simply because I knew eventually I'd be using it. It's been sitting in my drawer since then.

So the question is, from what I understand, if you turn off all the extras, Vista is not that bad. I don't suppose I can get an unbiased assessment on slashdot, though. Is it really that buggy? More than XP?

How bad is Vista? Well that depends. The UAC does break a good amount of software that works just fine on XP.Also the journal playback doesn't work with the UAC turned on. It was a security issue but it is also how some programs did simple macros and allowed you to create applications that pushed text into other windows apps.Also the USB system seems to have some bugs in it.Also the sound system can be really odd at times. Some computers produce really crappy sound if you record at less than 16 bit 22 khz stereo. That shouldn't be an issue for just recording voice.It does use more disk space and memory than XP.It is also different and often it seems like it is different not to be better but to just be different.So as you have put it if you turn off all the extras then it isn't that bad.But if you turn off all the extras is it any better than XP?That is what makes Vista so bad. It really is a lot to some pain for little to no gain.XP works as well as Vista, uses less resources, and everybody knows most of it's quirks and problems. I feel that Vista is a case of not worth it. And what I find shocking is that most of the normal users out there feel the same way.

So the question is, from what I understand, if you turn off all the extras, Vista is not that bad. I don't suppose I can get an unbiased assessment on slashdot, though. Is it really that buggy? More than XP?

There are a handful of people here on Slashdot who actually like Vista and admit it. I'm one of them.

The biggest annoyance for me is the automatic horizontal scrolling in the folder pane of Windows Explorer. I absolutely hate it and want to turn it off, but there is no option.

I've only encountered two actual bugs, and they were both extremely minor. One of them I only encountered once, and can't actually remember what it is right now. The other is just a small bug that occurs when you create a new folder and then try to rename it too quickly.

Sure we did, but there were people on both sides of the fence, and the other side always had at least some reasons to switch. All I ever hear about Vista is "it's not as bad as people say", never "it's good because of X Y Z". Maybe I'm just getting old, but I remember people talking about 2k and saying how it never bluescreened and drivers were more compatible, but others said 98se was faster and better. Today, I hear that XP is faster, better, more usable, and easier, while vista is "not that bad". Seems a

So, the advice from Microsoft is to allow Vista to just automatically escalate your privileges?

Sigh.

I actually like UAC, and I'd recommend that most users just leave it on and suck up the increasingly infrequent nags. Perhaps it's a motorcycling thing; you give a final look over your shoulder before every maneuver, even though 99% of the time there's nothing there. It's the 1% that's going to kill you.

How much would they add as a surcharge to ship any model I choose WITHOUT a Microsoft operating system on it?

As in: "...can you just send me the laptop with nothing at all installed on the hard disk? I intend to install (Ubuntu/Fedora/OpenSuSE) on it. No, I really don't want anything in the way of tech support outside of parts and labor."

For some classes of customers, they have to expect a certain number of calls over most other customers. Small Business customers are likely one of those classes, as they tend to not have their own IT staff. Charging them a premium for a near EOL (again) OS, allows Dell to recoup some of the costs associated with testing multiple flavors of XP on a continuing basis on systems that don't already have that cost built in (yes, I'm making the assumption they build that in to their different other classes of PC

Yet again we see proof that Microsoft has a monopoly. If there were real competition in the market, people would not be forced to bend over and pay more. There would be competition, Dell would have to offer it at the same price or another operating system would win.

Also, if there were competition, Microsoft would not have the economic ability to decide to drop a product that people wanted and force them into something they didn't. If I was a share holder and there was actual competition in the market place, I'd have the board and CEO fired for failing their fiduciary responsibilities.

The only problem to run Win2k is on a laptop with Wifi. There's no coherent Wifi subsystem to do what one can do in WinXP. XP's system pales in comparison to Ubuntu though. Nothing can beat iwconfig/ifconfig/iptables combo... except for pf.

If one has a Linux-liked wifi card, switch to Ubuntu. Its worth the trouble.

Seriously, people at NVIDIA must be REALLY LAZY to not include one line of code into an.INF file so their card would work under XP (since they ARE using a unified driver architecture and all for the very purpose of keeping things compatible across the board)

The HD's are likely all imaged with a single Vista image. In order to mass market XP, they will likely have to re-tool slightly to continue producing XP imaged drives in addition to Vista imaged drives. It's not much, but it does add to the labor, and while $50 is a bit steep, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the combination of tooling, labor, and licensing adds up to close to that amount.

The costs that you spoke of have already been paid for. It's part of the taking Vista on as a new product process. The hardware/factory space etc. required is the same for both Vista and XP. Since OEMs are not producing imaged HDs 24/7, building 2 different but equally supported (in the factory) systems is neither more difficult or more expensive than doing just one. They have to support how many versions of Vista? They supported all those versions of Vista while they were still supporting versions of XP but now the price is increased?

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the combination of tooling, labor, and licensing adds up to close to that amount.

Because, as we all know, this is the first time they have ever sold Windows XP and they have to create the entire install and assembly process from scratch and re-engineer their business process to support this extremely rare special case...

I appreciate your sarcasm, but have you ever run a low overhead high efficiency production line?

If you have exactly the right amount of resources to distribute Vista as per your current plan, where are you going to get the resources to distribute XP? Sure, maybe it's 1 extra man-hour a day to get the installs done, or to swap bins and output trays for pre-loaded XP hard drives. But that's 1 hour of labor that you have to pay for only because you are offering XP. 1 hour could be $20 payment for a union factory worker with seniority. Figure another $10 in taxes, SS, UE, etc on top of that, $4 to the health care plan, and another $1 to the retirement plan. You've just paid an extra $35 for 1 hour of labor.

Now you also need to update your sales catalog to reflect the new availability and pricing.

Update you web site to include the configuration option.

Update your marketing material to let consumers know they have the choice.

Update your support documentation so that your Tier 1 script readers know to ask "Do you have Windows XP or Vista?"

Duplicate your warehouse and distribution organization to handle identical models of PCs and laptops with both OS's.

Continuously review production and sales data to determine if you need to increase, decrease, or suspend production of XP PC/Laptops.

etc...

And, if what another commenter has mentioned is true, about Dell no longer having distribution rights to XP to allow them to use pre-loaded HD's, you are looking at having to pay the labor to have each and every laptop loaded manually.

So yeah, it costs a bit extra for them to offer it. Could part of the $50 be due to MS trying to push them away from the selling it? Likely. Could some of the $50 be due to Dell trying to dissuade people from buying it? Also likely. But to claim that running extra product varieties on an existing production line will not increase production costs is just short sighted.

If it was an HP, then it's not XP's fault. HP, especially their 2000 series laptops, do not have any drivers for XP. Or rather, they don't work.
I have Vista on my HP 2000 laptop, and Ubuntu 8.04. Both work great. XP just isn't worth the hassle to try to install because the drivers aren't there.
Now on my desktop, I have all 3 installed, and I've never run into a situation where my PC ran better in Vista then it did in XP. XP is just faster and more solid then Vista. Ubuntu cleans house over both MS produ

Rights to OEM versions of systems software are granted in the OEM License Terms. The OEM License Terms for most OEM versions of systems software do not grant downgrade rights. The exception is the OEM License Terms for the WindowsÂ® XP Professional operating system and the Windows Vistaâ Business and Windows Vista Ultimate operating systems, which grant downgrade rights. See the full text of the OEM License Terms for the specific downgrade rights.